[B-Greek] 1 Chron.29:20 LXX

Kaz alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Fri Feb 18 22:13:51 EST 2005


Hi Toni,

You asked:

"In 1 Chron.29:20 LXX, it states KAMPSANTES TA GONATA PROSEKUNHSAN TWi
KURIWi KAI TWi BASILEI. In this passage, PROSEKUNHSAN is used of both
the Lord and the king (David). Would this passage indicate that the king

was also seen as an object of homage with God? The dative case in both
articles and nouns KURIWi and BASILEI indicate that the Deity and the
king were the recipients of such homage. I know this question may appear
more theological than textual, but is the king in this passage presented
as the Deity's vice-regent on the earth? Many thanks."

To me it seems clear that both God and the king as his vice-regent are
the recipients of the obeisance or worship that is offered at 1
Chron.29:20.  Perhaps your question stems from the realization that the
element of 'worship' is probably always present in a context where Jews
are bowing before their sovereign God, and so it is striking that an
earthly king would be a joint recipient of such homage.  Brenton no
doubt struggled with this question himself, for notice how he chose to
translate this verse:

"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers, and
they bowed the knee and worshipped the Lord, and did obeisance to the
king."

The problem with Brenton's translation is that there seems to be no
grammatical justification for applying two separate words to God and the
king when there is a single instance of PROSEKUNHSAN offered.  No doubt
Brenton found it difficult to imagine how anything less than worship
would be offered to God, yet found it equally difficult to imagine how
anyone who is not God could be the recipient of worship.  While I can
sympathize with Brenton's dilemma, I think that one should probably
decide whether God and the king are given obeisance or worship and
translate accordingly.  Like Brenton, I can't imagine that the element
of worship would be missing in a context where the ancient Jews were
bowing before God in recognition of his sovereignty.  So how does one
deal with this difficulty?  I think that the principle of 'agency'
resolves the problem, as an agent was equated legally with the principal
he represents (see George Wesley Buchanan's, "Biblical and Theological
Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law").

Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske








More information about the B-Greek mailing list